[61295] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Perez)
Wed Aug 27 16:41:30 2003
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 16:40:49 -0400
From: "Joel Perez" <jperez@numind.net>
To: "Rick Ernst" <erond@legendz.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I have a Level-3 OC-3 in Miami. So far they have proved to be more
stable than my other 2 upstreams. Never had a problem with their
helpdesk either!=20
Regards,
----------------------------------------------
Joel Perez <jperez@ntera.net> | IP Engineer
http://www.ntera.net/ | Ntera
305.914.3412
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Rick Ernst [mailto:erond@legendz.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 3:33 PM
>>To: nanog@merit.edu
>>Subject: Tier-1 without their own backbone?
>>
>>
>>
>>We are sending out feelers for adding an additional DS-3, or possibly
frac
>>OC-3. One of the responses came back with "we won't be competive with
>><provider> because they don't have their own backbone.
>>
>>Is there a cross-reference for provider vs network backbone, or is
this
>>just
>>something that we have to ask each provider for? I "assume" that UU,
>>Sprint,
>>and AT&T are self-owned backbones, but others... ?
>>
>>One of the providers we are looking at is Level-3. Any comments
good/bad
>>on
>>reliability and clue? We already have UU, Sprint, and AT&T. I also
>>realize
>>that the "they suck less" list changes continuously... :)
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Rick
>>
